If they send it back to Congress, none of it will survive because none of it would pass in both houses of Congress again. The last time any of it passed the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the Senate, which they no longer have and are not likely to achieve in this November's elections, and the House had a large majority of Democrats populating it - also lacking at the moment and not likely to change as a result of November's election. Sending it back to Congress will kill it just as effectively as ruling it unconstitutional would, but I don't think this court is going to allow the larger question of whether or not the general government can lay claim to this power to remain unanswered and it would be shirking its duty if it did.
From the arguments yesterday, it doesn't appear that the justices are going to go through 2700 pages line by line to sort through every single provision contained within the legislation, nor do I think they should. What is relevant is whether or not the law was debated and passed with the intention of having it funded by an unconstitutional means of using the force of government to compel citizens to sign contracts for health insurance. The elimination of lifetime cap on benefits, the provision requiring automatic acceptance at one community rate for everyone, every major provision that the law contains is premised on the general government being able to use the force of government to compel citizens to sign contracts for health insurance and decide that they must participate in commerce of the general government's choosing.
Once that foundational premise is found to be unconstitutional everything built on that foundation has to come down. The law that the Democrats wrote isn't a series of separate buildings built on separate foundations, it is one large building built upon a single foundation. It is a single law addressing a single subject - the Democrats didn't have the luxury of time to write individual laws before they were going to lose their ability to do whatever they wanted in Congress and get it to the president's desk for his signature so they laid down one rotten foundation and built the whole law on top of it. From every indication that is the view from the majority of the justices on the bench. They are not about to go through the 2700 rooms and try to save a few walls of the structure, take down a few lighting fixtures and pull out a couple of windows - they are going to condemn the entire structure that was built on a rotten foundation before any furniture is moved into any of the rooms. Hopefully by doing so the message will be sent to Congress that they need to have a series of inspections as the building is built instead of building the whole structure before allowing a single inspection of what they are constructing.
This could just be my foggy perspective, but it seems that the left has been using the courts quite effectively over the past couple of decades to do the things they want to do. Now that the right has taken a page out of the left's playbook and used the tactic effectively, the left is questioning the validity of the court.
I find this to be both refreshing and enlightening.
If the Supreme Court finds the law to be unconstitutional...then that's just the way it goes. They should throw the whole thing out and start over in Congress. Congress should not expect the Court to do their job for them.
I like the "rotten foundation" analogy. The left rushed through a flawed piece of legislation for political expedience. To make it worse...it was an "in your face" kind of approach which ALWAYS wins the hearts and minds of your opponents. Its warts are now coming to light. The best thing to do is knock it down and start over.
I know the press will try to spin it differently, but if the Administration loses this one....it will leave a mark.
If the whole law gets overturned, its going to be a mess for awhile (The Democrats created). And somehow I see the Democrats profiting from that, don't ask me why?
There is always the possibility it doesn't get overturned, may only take 1 vote.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
Joe wrote: If the whole law gets overturned, its going to be a mess for awhile (The Democrats created). And somehow I see the Democrats profiting from that, don't ask me why?
There is always the possibility it doesn't get overturned, may only take 1 vote.
I see the Dems start screaming... "see... the GOP took away your health care... grandma is going to die in 3 seconds"... it's not going to work anymore... the is still some respect left in this country for the Supreme Court... and this health care narrative is falling apart as quickly as the race-baiting narrative about Zimmerman.
We'll see how long that "respect" lasts if the ruling doesn't go the way the conservatives hope.
My guess is the individual mandate will be ruled unconstitutional. Congratulations, you don't have to have health insurance and the taxpayers can just keep paying for your visits to the emergency room.
But, it's anyone's guess when it comes to the Supremes. They do have a way of surprising people.
Seems to me the proper course of action then would be to address the taxpayers being saddled with the responsibility to pay for your emergency room care, another of the mandates issued by the general government, rather than attempt to pass legislation which violates the supreme law of the union, but that's just me I suppose. The problem you mention is one created by the general government and its mandates issued from on high, not the doctors, not the hospitals. Getting the general government out of the business of taxing the rest of us to subsidize the health care of the free riders would also solve that particular problem you are whining about, wouldn't it?
It's nice to see the conservatives back to their roots, that is, f**k those unable to afford health care or health insurance and let them die on the streets. The Supremes, or at least Roberts/Alito/Scalia will decide on what best benefits the corporate insurance companies.
"Remember to always be yourself. Unless you can be batman. Then always be batman." Unknown
Something the Dog Said wrote: It's nice to see the conservatives back to their roots, that is, f**k those unable to afford health care or health insurance and let them die on the streets. The Supremes, or at least Roberts/Alito/Scalia will decide on what best benefits the corporate insurance companies.
It's nice to see "progressives" back to telling their lies hoping to scare everyone into voting for them. Why "progressives" fail to acknowledge that the governments of the free, independent and sovereign States are capable of addressing this need of their citizens without input or control from the general government is simply beyond my ability to comprehend. It's almost as it they think that the governments of the States don't exist at all or are not important in any manner, shape or form in the lives of their citizens.
I agree with P.S. if anything good comes out of this maybe some states will take a more proactive role in health insurance. They have the power to regulate it, unregulate it, subsidize it, screw it up more, or do nothing.
If you want to be, press one. If you want not to be, press 2
Republicans are red, democrats are blue, neither of them, gives a flip about you.
